Flippanarchy

I'm increasingly concerned that it seems like you are dismissing my concerns about risk of harm by just saying "it's already that way under capitalism, so why should it need to be better?" It also seems like you are claiming that I hold the burden of proof for saying that the conclusions of game theory and simple economics hold, rather than that a totally untested, never-successfully-implemented system must prove its worth before completely discarding every single model which describes the system of humanity as we know it. Doesn't that sound, very literally, reactionary? As in, a reaction on reflex? That we should just throw ourselves to the wind in the hope that we end up somewhere better than capitalism?

By saying that no true democracy that "includes economic matters" has ever existed, you make my point clear: you are saying "this has never been done before, therefore it must work because it is different"

The reason I do not provide data on human nature is because the burden of proof lies with those attempting to disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis here is the current understanding under the system known to the querent: I.e. very basic economics and game theory. The untested system is the one which must prove itself. I would be very genuinely interested to see your data on "homo economicus is a myth, one that is disproven daily", preferably starting with a rigorous definition of what, precisely, are the implicit assumptions of "Homo Economicus" which are to be disproved. The only presuppositions I have made, as far as I can tell, are that humans are not perfectly rational actors (hence the "easily manipulated" part), but that they are still capable of rational choices given incomplete information. Basic game theory can describe why people would make selfish decisions. All you need are the right perceived cost and benefit weightings to show that a rational actor would and should make betrayer moves. Just saying "altruism exists", or that people who choose to become teachers have intrinsic motivation is insufficient to prove what appears, at least to me, to be a patently naïve view of the innate goodness of people. If you want my "data" on "a fair portion of people suck, and it is often rational for people to betray others", I recommend the lovely little simulation "the evolution of trust". That's nothing but simple game theory.

As far as "having it both ways" on coercion, I believe that any society that I would want to be a part of should incentivise people to make cooperator moves, and disincentivise betrayer moves, rather than relying on intrinsic motivation in a pie-in-the-sky, all-in bet that humans are intrinsically good enough to cooperate at scale without people gaming the system. All you need to see that intrinsic motivation is insufficient for most, is to look in a classroom. I can provide studies on intrinsic motivation in the classroom (which is about as far as you can get from capitalism in the modern age), if that would be helpful.

Anyway, Coercion is not something in which I'm interested. If a system cannot act without being based primarily on coercion (as you seem to be calling it or, as I would say it "without the clear inevitability of falling to a totalitarian state"), then that's not sufficiently better than the status quo for me to justify the effort of instantiating such a system

You treat the amount of teachers at equilibrium as the goal, but if you want an educated populace, your primary focus needs to be in incentivising those who are good at the job and those who have enough intrinsic motivation to want the job, to stay in the job. If you're constantly shuffling out the experienced teachers for new blood, then not only have you effectively just recreated the current Teacher-Crushing Machine™ (brought to you by the makers of the Orphan-Crushing Machine™ and the Torment NeXus™), but you've also just put the education of your entire population into the hands of inexperienced and mentally-taxed people desperate to get out. That's simply an untenable situation, and it's the same for every sector which carries risk. You want to minimise the risks, then actively incentivise those who are suited to the job and who are willing to take the risks to actually keep doing so. Is the goal of this whole endeavour not maximising utility? How is creating huge populations of jaded ex-firefighters supposed to serve the public good, let alone help to convince the populace that the system works better than the capitalist way? If the end goal just looks like a slightly different torment nexus, why should I want to upgrade to Torment Nexus 2 (now made with 30% recycled material!), for the low-low price of a violent revolution or three?